The universe as the totality of existence

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

The universe as the totality of existence

Post #1

Post by Susma »

Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?



Susma

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #21

Post by McCulloch »

Susma wrote: In the meantime I am still waiting for Mc to return, unless he can't find his way out of his depths.
I concede and admit that discussing your concept of the universe is way beyond my depth. I am simply not smart enough to make any sense out of what you are saying. I have not the intellectual capability to demonstrate whether your concept is valid or invalid to your satisfaction. Why don't you present to us what you mean by valid concept, I am sure that like your concept of universe, it will be very deep and completely unfathomable. I'll follow along as a lurker, hoping to pick out bits of meaning from this monologue and maybe even jump in from time to time when something is said that my feeble brain thinks it can comprehend.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

Post #22

Post by Susma »

On the matter of my taunting atheists to come forward -- in truth I am just into an enthusiastic invitation to them to exchange views with me, here is what I have gathered on the Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig news event, this October is the month of Craig's tour to Oxford, England.

telegraph.co.u wrote:
Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God

Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church “evil� and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock�.

By Tim Ross, Religious Affairs Editor
9:58AM BST 14 May 2011

But he now stands accused of “cowardice� after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.

A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring� failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good� on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

[...]

Prof Craig is due to visit Britain in October this year. Four invitations to take part in public debates were sent to Prof Dawkins from The British Humanist Association, The Cambridge Debating Union, the Oxford Christian Union and Premier Radio.

Prof Dawkins declined them all. He told The Daily Telegraph that he had recently debated Prof Craig, in a boxing ring, in Mexico, and claimed he was not impressed by his opponent. His critics say this event was a six-person discussion, not a rigorous debate, but Prof Dawkins disagrees.

“I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion,� he said.

Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.�

Prof Craig, however, remains willing to debate with Prof Dawkins. “I am keeping the opportunity open for him to change his mind and debate with me in the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford� in October, he said.

[...]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... f-God.html

---------------------

See also Oxford Atheist Calls Richard Dawkins "Coward" for Not Debating William Lane Craig

http://www.thinkatheist.com/video/oxfor ... t-debating
----------------------
hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk wrote:
[Peter Hitchens blog]

27 October 2011 12:02 PM
An Evening without Richard Dawkins

This is a light-hearted diversion for the God-hating adherents to this site (to whom I occasionally fling hunks of bleeding flesh, so that I can watch them come flapping from afar to feast on it).

Maybe it will also be a rest from the tedium of responding (yet again) to the various lame and exploded ‘arguments’ of the drug lobby [...]

[...]

Now, serious engagement was exactly what we got in the uplifting surroundings of Sir Christopher Wren’s Sheldonian Theatre (named after Archbishop Gilbert Sheldon, since you ask, and one of the great buildings of Europe [...]

[...]

The American philosopher William Lane Craig had offered to debate Richard Dawkins’s book ‘The God Delusion’ with its author, in his home town (and mine). Dawkins is around, because he has his own event in another Oxford location on Friday. But despite being in the midst of promoting a new book, Dawkins refused to come. He came up with a series of silly excuses, none of which holds water. And an empty chair was provided for him at the Sheldonian on Tuesday evening, in case he changed his mind and – yes – to mock him for his absence. Details of this controversy are all over the web, and I was impressed by the behaviour of another Oxford atheist, Daniel Came, who said Dawkins should have turned up, and had the guts to be there himself. I might say that I thought his contribution was serious, thoughtful and properly modest about the limits of what we can know. The bumptiousness and raillery of Dawkins and some other anti-God preachers was entirely absent from his discourse, and it was all the better for it.

I have to confess here that I don’t find Craig’s debating style or manner very attractive. It is too smooth and American for me [...]

[...]

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ ... wkins.html


So, in this Random Ramblings board at the risk of sounding like taunting, I invite most enthusiastically atheist posters here to exchange views with me on their concept of the universe, all in a "light-hearted diversion" mood but still most rich in mental illumination for everyone sincerely keen on the quest for genuine learning.




Susma

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #23

Post by Susma »

McCulloch wrote:
Susma wrote: In the meantime I am still waiting for Mc to return, unless he can't find his way out of his depths.
I concede and admit that discussing your concept of the universe is way beyond my depth. I am simply not smart enough to make any sense out of what you are saying. I have not the intellectual capability to demonstrate whether your concept is valid or invalid to your satisfaction. Why don't you present to us what you mean by valid concept, I am sure that like your concept of universe, it will be very deep and completely unfathomable. I'll follow along as a lurker, hoping to pick out bits of meaning from this monologue and maybe even jump in from time to time when something is said that my feeble brain thinks it can comprehend.


Here again my concept or definition of what is an invalid concept what a valid concept.
Susma wrote:
[ Read my text in bold enlarged font at the end. ]
McCulloch wrote:
Susma wrote: Here is my concept of the universe:
  • Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.
[Enumeration by Susma]

1. Firstly, I see no reason for any individual to redefine the meaning of words. Universe is a word that does have existing definitions.

Susma asks for opinions about his concept. Here are mine:
  • 2. It is too long. All of the words after the totality of existence seem to me to add nothing meaningful.
  • 3. It may be too wide for the purposes that Susma wants to use. For example, if God exists, then God is a part of and therefore not the creator of the universe, as the definition now stands.
  • 4. Personal preference: Use the term humans rather than man.
  • 5. The phrase where man lives in and is part and parcel of makes the definition anthropocentric. The universe existed prior to human appearance and will exist after human extinction, thus it makes no sense to define the universe in terms of human habitation.
  • 6. The phrase as also everything else that exists is grammatically incorrect and adds no meaning whatsoever to the definition.
  • 7. The phrase at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse, inappropriately adds all imaginary things into the definition. As far as I know, unicorns, fire breathing dragons, vampires and werewolves are not a part of the universe, yet they are subject of human imagination
8. Most of these issues have been brought to Susma's attention previously, yet Susma still repeatedly asks for opinions about his concept and has yet made no adjustments to his definition.

Image

Before anything else, this is my signature:
  • The big brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

I see very clearly and I hope Mc can see it also, namely:
  • That he has not said anything at all that can render the concept of the universe from me an invalid concept.

That is a great failure to say something about a concept but to in effect say nothing serious about it in terms of its most important aspect, namely, whether it is a valid or an invalid concept.

Now he should ask me what is the distinction between a valid concept and an invalid concept, if he does not know; or ask the dictionaries and his internet authorities.


That is the utmost insuperable deficiency with Mc as also with a lot of atheists, they always miss dealing with a concept in terms of its most important aspect, namely, is the concept a valid concept or not.

They are out of their depths.


So, Mc, time for you to learn what is a valid concept.

Then you can attend to the most important aspect of a concept, is it valid?

Read again carefully everything in my concept of the universe and see whether at all there is anything in it that makes the whole concept invalid.
Susma wrote: Here is my concept of the universe:
  • Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.
Now, if it is a valid concept then you have to either flee from it or deal with it, depending on your sincerity and your cognitive guts in the search for the facts in the world of realities.

The way I see you, your mind is into a routinized maze with only very limited number of routes, and no exit at all.




Dear Mc, please don't go away!


You are welcome to also delve into my cognitive psychology to seek the grounds of my cognitive statements.


And respect has nothing to do with my ideas or your ideas, just keep to the ideas and try to not act on the basis of someone is lacking respect for someone else, etc.



I almost forgot, I put your statements into an enumeration, so that you can point out which statement from you shows how my concept of the universe is an invalid concept.


What is an invalid concept?

Here is my concept or definition of an invalid concept:
  • One that cannot have correspondence even to any possibility in reality, i.e., is intrinsically impossible to exist.


Go to the dictionaries and your internet authorities if you cannot or will not accept my concept or definition of what is an invalid concept, the opposite of which is a valid concept.


Lastly, I am not going to waste time and labor making comments on your statements one by one, since one by one and together as an assembly they say nothing about the validity or invalidity of my concept of the universe.

Suppose you come up with your concept of the universe, or you use the dictionaries and your internet authorities to come up with your concept of the universe.




Susma


Signing off, be back tomorrow morning.



Susma

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #24

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Addressing readers:

See the cue word unicorn of atheists in the post below of TGA.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?
"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

[...]

There are other cue words of atheists, like flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot.

Cue words are instructions to atheists to stop thinking and adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.


See?

If they continue to think further on whether an invisible pink unicorn is possible or not -- though not always accessible to atheists because they stop thinking, they will realize that the invisible unicorn is invisible to them only because they stop seeing and thinking.

As for the flying spaghetti monster there is no intrinsic impossibility of a flying spaghetti monster, a good worker of dough can produce such a monster.

But these entities are not really valid concepts to them but cue words to them to stop thinking, and to adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.



That is why I have said time and again that atheists don't think on the issue of God or no God, they engage in mockery, parody, and evasions.




Susma
Too bad I am not an atheist. Did you bother reading my usergroup list? Or any of my posts, like maybe my lengthy discussion of the need for an infinite first cause in the Philosophy subforum? Or my extensive knowledge of the scriptures? or even my willingness to consider non-physical realities in the above post? Or the absence of mockery, parody and evasions in any of my posts?

Is it that you are in fact the one who can only think in terms of cue words? Or do you really not have anything meaningful to say in response to my contribution to this thread and are seeking ot evade it instead? If I am wrong and it is something else, let me know.

But I can see this conversation is not going to go anyplace useful. Too bad. It could have been something.

Okay, that is supposedly informative for obiter dicta.



Now, suppose you take up my request, tell me all the things that are everything and anything that is in the universe as the totality of existence or as everything that exists.

And also the opposite: all the things that do not belong to the universe.



Susma
Enumerating things is the wrong direction. Everything that is logically possible exists. Otherwise there must be an explanation of why certain possible things exist and others do not. Contradictory things are isolated in separate universes in an infinite multiverse.

Start reading here and continue down. If you have something to contribute please do so there. I do not work that hard without tokens. :lol:


You say:
  • Everything that is logically possible exists.

Do you want to take back your words?


That is a most concise, precise, and clear and simple and plain and everyday common words statement, everyone even guys in the streets understand that.

And you are definitely categorical.


Now, again are you going to take back your words or qualify them or put them on reservations?



Otherwise, I will hold you to them, and continue with this thread on my concept of the universe as:
  • Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



Susma
If you wish to hold me to those words (whatever that means :confused2: ), go to the thread I referenced in the Philosophy subforum, read the full explication of what I mean and answer there.

I am no longer on this thread.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #25

Post by Susma »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Addressing readers:

See the cue word unicorn of atheists in the post below of TGA.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?
"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

[...]

There are other cue words of atheists, like flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot.

Cue words are instructions to atheists to stop thinking and adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.


See?

If they continue to think further on whether an invisible pink unicorn is possible or not -- though not always accessible to atheists because they stop thinking, they will realize that the invisible unicorn is invisible to them only because they stop seeing and thinking.

As for the flying spaghetti monster there is no intrinsic impossibility of a flying spaghetti monster, a good worker of dough can produce such a monster.

But these entities are not really valid concepts to them but cue words to them to stop thinking, and to adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.



That is why I have said time and again that atheists don't think on the issue of God or no God, they engage in mockery, parody, and evasions.




Susma
Too bad I am not an atheist. Did you bother reading my usergroup list? Or any of my posts, like maybe my lengthy discussion of the need for an infinite first cause in the Philosophy subforum? Or my extensive knowledge of the scriptures? or even my willingness to consider non-physical realities in the above post? Or the absence of mockery, parody and evasions in any of my posts?

Is it that you are in fact the one who can only think in terms of cue words? Or do you really not have anything meaningful to say in response to my contribution to this thread and are seeking to evade it instead? If I am wrong and it is something else, let me know.

But I can see this conversation is not going to go anyplace useful. Too bad. It could have been something.

Okay, that is supposedly informative for obiter dicta.



Now, suppose you take up my request, tell me all the things that are everything and anything that is in the universe as the totality of existence or as everything that exists.

And also the opposite: all the things that do not belong to the universe.



Susma
Enumerating things is the wrong direction. Everything that is logically possible exists. Otherwise there must be an explanation of why certain possible things exist and others do not. Contradictory things are isolated in separate universes in an infinite multiverse.

Start reading here and continue down. If you have something to contribute please do so there. I do not work that hard without tokens. :lol:


You say:
  • Everything that is logically possible exists.

Do you want to take back your words?


That is a most concise, precise, and clear and simple and plain and everyday common words statement, everyone even guys in the streets understand that.

And you are definitely categorical.


Now, again are you going to take back your words or qualify them or put them on reservations?



Otherwise, I will hold you to them, and continue with this thread on my concept of the universe as:
  • Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



Susma
If you wish to hold me to those words (whatever that means :confused2: ), go to the thread I referenced in the Philosophy subforum, read the full explication of what I mean and answer there.

I am no longer on this thread.

Please do not make reference elsewhere for people to look them up, that is just an evasion to bring the issue outside the thread.

The thing to do is to produce the short but relevant texts you want people to read there, and give the link.


You say you are no longer on this thread, that is indicative of fickleness, when the discussion gets serious then you execute an exit routine.


That is the trouble with a lot of posters: they want to enter an issue but when they find themselves out of their depths they execute an exit routine, which is a waste of people's time who take the initiative to start a thread.


On the other hand, do you readers notice the huge number of threads abandoned by their authors?

This forum can become notorious for a cemetery of abandoned threads, because people don't want to think but to just repeat like a recorder/player other people’s thoughts.

As soon as the discussion takes a serious turn requiring people to do original personal thinking, that is when they flee with a whiff of air that they are bored with the issue, but in fact to disguise their confusion, in reality they have boarded up their brains.


I want people to continue talking with me with original thoughts instead of conducting themselves exactly like recorder/players, delivering nothing they really know in the way of comprehension and intelligent assimilation, but dropping words and names and links to show readers that they have things inside their skulls, but it is all recorder/player behavior.



Back to TGA, I am asking her whether she will take back her words:
  • Everything that is logically possible exists.
And her knee-jerk reaction is that "I am no longer on this thread."


Those are cue words to readers that she is not going to do real thinking but to shun that serious work in a forum, and run away hoping she still have people admiring her for her pseudo-thinking, but there is no thinking but pure regurgitation of words hoping to display learning and pithy view but it is all vacuity and vanity.


Time and again posters here are into that routinized behavior in a paltry maze with the utmost limited number of routes and no exit, and they feel so learned with their theolog-ese, philosoph-ese, and other 'eses'.

That is the tragic way they employ their mind, as miserable recorder/player in a routinized paltry maze of a brain with no exit to fresh horizons of thought and insight.



If people don't feel self-congratulating with this post from yours truly, then it is about time they do some serious genuine self-initiated thinking and writing instead of making of themselves recorder/players.




No, I am not out of this forum, because I just love to observe the non-thinking of posters here; not all of them though, but the ones who don’t think but insist instead on their acquired credentials of dubious quality, they are the ones most enjoyable for me to meditate on as paradyms of human foibles.





Now, dear readers, let us sit back and witness what will happen.




Susma

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The universe as the totality of existence

Post #26

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Addressing readers:

See the cue word unicorn of atheists in the post below of TGA.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?
"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

[...]

There are other cue words of atheists, like flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot.

Cue words are instructions to atheists to stop thinking and adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.


See?

If they continue to think further on whether an invisible pink unicorn is possible or not -- though not always accessible to atheists because they stop thinking, they will realize that the invisible unicorn is invisible to them only because they stop seeing and thinking.

As for the flying spaghetti monster there is no intrinsic impossibility of a flying spaghetti monster, a good worker of dough can produce such a monster.

But these entities are not really valid concepts to them but cue words to them to stop thinking, and to adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.



That is why I have said time and again that atheists don't think on the issue of God or no God, they engage in mockery, parody, and evasions.




Susma
Too bad I am not an atheist. Did you bother reading my usergroup list? Or any of my posts, like maybe my lengthy discussion of the need for an infinite first cause in the Philosophy subforum? Or my extensive knowledge of the scriptures? or even my willingness to consider non-physical realities in the above post? Or the absence of mockery, parody and evasions in any of my posts?

Is it that you are in fact the one who can only think in terms of cue words? Or do you really not have anything meaningful to say in response to my contribution to this thread and are seeking to evade it instead? If I am wrong and it is something else, let me know.

But I can see this conversation is not going to go anyplace useful. Too bad. It could have been something.

Okay, that is supposedly informative for obiter dicta.



Now, suppose you take up my request, tell me all the things that are everything and anything that is in the universe as the totality of existence or as everything that exists.

And also the opposite: all the things that do not belong to the universe.



Susma
Enumerating things is the wrong direction. Everything that is logically possible exists. Otherwise there must be an explanation of why certain possible things exist and others do not. Contradictory things are isolated in separate universes in an infinite multiverse.

Start reading here and continue down. If you have something to contribute please do so there. I do not work that hard without tokens. :lol:


You say:
  • Everything that is logically possible exists.

Do you want to take back your words?


That is a most concise, precise, and clear and simple and plain and everyday common words statement, everyone even guys in the streets understand that.

And you are definitely categorical.


Now, again are you going to take back your words or qualify them or put them on reservations?



Otherwise, I will hold you to them, and continue with this thread on my concept of the universe as:
  • Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



Susma
If you wish to hold me to those words (whatever that means :confused2: ), go to the thread I referenced in the Philosophy subforum, read the full explication of what I mean and answer there.

I am no longer on this thread.

Please do not make reference elsewhere for people to look them up, that is just an evasion to bring the issue outside the thread.

The thing to do is to produce the short but relevant texts you want people to read there, and give the link.


You say you are no longer on this thread, that is indicative of fickleness, when the discussion gets serious then you execute an exit routine.


That is the trouble with a lot of posters: they want to enter an issue but when they find themselves out of their depths they execute an exit routine, which is a waste of people's time who take the initiative to start a thread.


On the other hand, do you readers notice the huge number of threads abandoned by their authors?

This forum can become notorious for a cemetery of abandoned threads, because people don't want to think but to just repeat like a recorder/player other people’s thoughts.

As soon as the discussion takes a serious turn requiring people to do original personal thinking, that is when they flee with a whiff of air that they are bored with the issue, but in fact to disguise their confusion, in reality they have boarded up their brains.


I want people to continue talking with me with original thoughts instead of conducting themselves exactly like recorder/players, delivering nothing they really know in the way of comprehension and intelligent assimilation, but dropping words and names and links to show readers that they have things inside their skulls, but it is all recorder/player behavior.



Back to TGA, I am asking her whether she will take back her words:
  • Everything that is logically possible exists.
And her knee-jerk reaction is that "I am no longer on this thread."


Those are cue words to readers that she is not going to do real thinking but to shun that serious work in a forum, and run away hoping she still have people admiring her for her pseudo-thinking, but there is no thinking but pure regurgitation of words hoping to display learning and pithy view but it is all vacuity and vanity.


Time and again posters here are into that routinized behavior in a paltry maze with the utmost limited number of routes and no exit, and they feel so learned with their theolog-ese, philosoph-ese, and other 'eses'.

That is the tragic way they employ their mind, as miserable recorder/player in a routinized paltry maze of a brain with no exit to fresh horizons of thought and insight.



If people don't feel self-congratulating with this post from yours truly, then it is about time they do some serious genuine self-initiated thinking and writing instead of making of themselves recorder/players.




No, I am not out of this forum, because I just love to observe the non-thinking of posters here; not all of them though, but the ones who don’t think but insist instead on their acquired credentials of dubious quality, they are the ones most enjoyable for me to meditate on as paradyms of human foibles.





Now, dear readers, let us sit back and witness what will happen.




Susma
I offered a short answer to your question. You wanted more. (I think. Your answer was rather confusing to me and appeared to have no relevant content.) More already exists. If you are serious about this topic go examine the much lengthier explanation in another thread. I have no intention of repeating it all here. I gave you a link. you do not have to look anything up just read. If I duplicated it here you would still have to read. Go to that thread and you will also see my answers to objections that were offered by others.

If you find clicking on a link too onerous and require instead that I redo a very long and complex argument here for your benefit, I can only assume that you have no intention of investing any effort at all in this other than offer loads of excuses for not engaging in genuine debate. And again this is not a debate forum we are in. If you are serious about this discussion, go where the action already is. But I note that you have not really offered much in the way of content here. Not that this is a crime in the RR room. But I get the impression you may have no real content to offer. Prove me wrong. Go critique what I have already said on the subject in a setting that requires substance.

Here is that link again.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6&start=13

Be there or be square.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #27

Post by Confused »

Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Addressing readers:

See the cue word unicorn of atheists in the post below of TGA.
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Susma wrote:Here is my concept of the universe:

I like to ask people who like myself love to think about concepts: their definitions and explanation:
  • What do you think of my concept of the universe?
"or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse."

I have a problem with this part. I can imagine things that do not necessarily physically exist, e.g., pegasus/unicorn half breeds that play Spanish guitar. Are these things part of the universe? Does the universe you describe include some actually existing realm of ideas?

[...]

There are other cue words of atheists, like flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot.

Cue words are instructions to atheists to stop thinking and adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.


See?

If they continue to think further on whether an invisible pink unicorn is possible or not -- though not always accessible to atheists because they stop thinking, they will realize that the invisible unicorn is invisible to them only because they stop seeing and thinking.

As for the flying spaghetti monster there is no intrinsic impossibility of a flying spaghetti monster, a good worker of dough can produce such a monster.

But these entities are not really valid concepts to them but cue words to them to stop thinking, and to adopt the writing mode of mockery, parody, and evasions.



That is why I have said time and again that atheists don't think on the issue of God or no God, they engage in mockery, parody, and evasions.




Susma
Too bad I am not an atheist. Did you bother reading my usergroup list? Or any of my posts, like maybe my lengthy discussion of the need for an infinite first cause in the Philosophy subforum? Or my extensive knowledge of the scriptures? or even my willingness to consider non-physical realities in the above post? Or the absence of mockery, parody and evasions in any of my posts?

Is it that you are in fact the one who can only think in terms of cue words? Or do you really not have anything meaningful to say in response to my contribution to this thread and are seeking to evade it instead? If I am wrong and it is something else, let me know.

But I can see this conversation is not going to go anyplace useful. Too bad. It could have been something.

Okay, that is supposedly informative for obiter dicta.



Now, suppose you take up my request, tell me all the things that are everything and anything that is in the universe as the totality of existence or as everything that exists.

And also the opposite: all the things that do not belong to the universe.



Susma
Enumerating things is the wrong direction. Everything that is logically possible exists. Otherwise there must be an explanation of why certain possible things exist and others do not. Contradictory things are isolated in separate universes in an infinite multiverse.

Start reading here and continue down. If you have something to contribute please do so there. I do not work that hard without tokens. :lol:


You say:
  • Everything that is logically possible exists.

Do you want to take back your words?


That is a most concise, precise, and clear and simple and plain and everyday common words statement, everyone even guys in the streets understand that.

And you are definitely categorical.


Now, again are you going to take back your words or qualify them or put them on reservations?



Otherwise, I will hold you to them, and continue with this thread on my concept of the universe as:
  • Universe = the totality of existence where man lives in and is part and parcel of, as also everything else that exists or at least can be the subject of man's imagination and discourse.



Susma
If you wish to hold me to those words (whatever that means :confused2: ), go to the thread I referenced in the Philosophy subforum, read the full explication of what I mean and answer there.

I am no longer on this thread.

Please do not make reference elsewhere for people to look them up, that is just an evasion to bring the issue outside the thread.

The thing to do is to produce the short but relevant texts you want people to read there, and give the link.


You say you are no longer on this thread, that is indicative of fickleness, when the discussion gets serious then you execute an exit routine.


That is the trouble with a lot of posters: they want to enter an issue but when they find themselves out of their depths they execute an exit routine, which is a waste of people's time who take the initiative to start a thread.


On the other hand, do you readers notice the huge number of threads abandoned by their authors?

This forum can become notorious for a cemetery of abandoned threads, because people don't want to think but to just repeat like a recorder/player other people’s thoughts.

As soon as the discussion takes a serious turn requiring people to do original personal thinking, that is when they flee with a whiff of air that they are bored with the issue, but in fact to disguise their confusion, in reality they have boarded up their brains.


I want people to continue talking with me with original thoughts instead of conducting themselves exactly like recorder/players, delivering nothing they really know in the way of comprehension and intelligent assimilation, but dropping words and names and links to show readers that they have things inside their skulls, but it is all recorder/player behavior.



Back to TGA, I am asking her whether she will take back her words:
  • Everything that is logically possible exists.
And her knee-jerk reaction is that "I am no longer on this thread."


Those are cue words to readers that she is not going to do real thinking but to shun that serious work in a forum, and run away hoping she still have people admiring her for her pseudo-thinking, but there is no thinking but pure regurgitation of words hoping to display learning and pithy view but it is all vacuity and vanity.


Time and again posters here are into that routinized behavior in a paltry maze with the utmost limited number of routes and no exit, and they feel so learned with their theolog-ese, philosoph-ese, and other 'eses'.

That is the tragic way they employ their mind, as miserable recorder/player in a routinized paltry maze of a brain with no exit to fresh horizons of thought and insight.



If people don't feel self-congratulating with this post from yours truly, then it is about time they do some serious genuine self-initiated thinking and writing instead of making of themselves recorder/players.




No, I am not out of this forum, because I just love to observe the non-thinking of posters here; not all of them though, but the ones who don’t think but insist instead on their acquired credentials of dubious quality, they are the ones most enjoyable for me to meditate on as paradyms of human foibles.





Now, dear readers, let us sit back and witness what will happen.




Susma
Moderator Intervention
Susma,
Despite this being in a RR discussion section, you must still maintain a civil and respective tone. You may express your opinion as much as you want, but it must still fall within the rules of this forum.
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

Susma
Under Probation
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:44 pm

Post #28

Post by Susma »

I have a new thread for you atheists to examine yourselves on.

Go to And here is the initiating post from yours truly.
Susma wrote:
This thread is into an examination of the extreme degree of conceptual xenophobia atheists labor under, when they encounter a concept of an idea or just a thing that they react to with fear and flight and loathing and/or with hatred and violent aggression.


I will study the posts from atheists here who have interacted with me on my concepts of universe, evidence, God, in my two threads on, and my thread here in this Random Ramblings board on,
However, so that readers will not feel so much dismay with atheists' conceptual xenophobia, I want readers to notice also that Americans as a society has inured into their heart and mind the instinct which I call "Xenophobia for Atheists."



I will now gather my materials from the threads stated above where I had interactions with atheists on my concepts of universe, God, and evidence, to show how atheists suffer from such a malady which incapacitates them from knowing better an idea or a thing, which results in a self-dungeoning of their heart and mind, by which they closet themselves to the wealth of concepts in the totality of existence which is the universe.

Now, you will get to know your conceptual xenophobia on which account you use dictionaries and internet authorities -- aside from other tactics of self-closeting -- as shields for the self-dungeoning of your of heart and mind with tunnel vision, to only ideas and things you have been indoctrinated on what it is and how to deal with it, but without doing any genuine thinking about them.




Susma

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #29

Post by Confused »

:warning: Moderator Final Warning
Susma,
Simply regurgitating your threads will not get any better responses. This is to serve as your final warning. Next step will be to consider probation.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

Post #30

Post by Confused »

Moderator Action

Due to the high content of reported posts, all of which were reported against the author of this thread, it has been locked.

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been moved, merged, or split. Such actions are taken at the discretion of a moderator.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

Locked